This seems like a good time to educate myself about the application (and objection) process.

The bureaucracy seems precision-engineered to stultify, but apparently the public have 104 days after “String Confirmation Day” (17th Nov; capitalization theirs) to lodge objections, assuming the “GAC” doesn’t beat them to it…

https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round...

…of course there’s a “filing fee,” priced in “hours of a panel of lawyers’ time,” to lodge such an objection…

https://newgtldprogram-2026-agb.icann.org/en/8-module-4-comm...

…welp, hope somebody more organized (and better-funded) than I can organize an objection. Much as I feel like I’m giving up my right to gripe by assuming somebody else will come along to do the weeding.

▲

ZeroWidthJoiner 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Following "String Confirmation Day" there's also a "Name Collision Risk Management Framework" assessment that new gTLDs will need to pass in order for the application to proceed: https://icannwiki.org/Name_Collision_Risk_Management_Framewo...

This may very well end up to be determined too risky to be delegated, like .corp, .home and .mail in 2018.

▲

gavinsyancey 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's a short list of grounds they will consider for an objection, and none of them are applicable here. Paraphrasing your second link, they only allow:

- "String Confusion" -- looks or sounds like an existing (approved or being applied for) gTLD. Must be filed by whoever owns (or is applying for) that gTLD.

- "Legal Rights" -- someone else owns a trademark this would violate. Must be filed by whoever's legal rights would be violated.

- "Limited Public Interest" -- the gTLD is immoral under recognized principles of international law. I have no idea when this could be applicable.

- "Community" -- An established community organization believes the group this gTLD is intended to target will object to it. This seems more like a vehicle for e.g. Little People of America to let ICANN know that ".midget" would be offensive.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to tell ICANN that .lan has been widely used and will break things in a way they will listen to.

▲

simondotau 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to tell ICANN that .lan has been widely used

ICANN isn't the DNS police, and lobbying them is pointless. We should campaign for open-source router projects[0], commercial hardware developers[1], DNS resolver developers, and major providers[2] to collectively designate commonly used private TLDs such as .home, .lan, .intranet, and .private as non-resolvable in public DNS.

Local resolution would continue to work, but these names would never be forwarded upstream. With sufficient adoption, we'd establish a de facto reservation and make the TLDs commercially worthless, regardless of what ICANN decides.

[0] There is precedence here. OpenWrt already reserves .lan in its default dnsmasq configuration.

[1] There is precedence here. GL.iNet inherits from its OpenWrt roots. Ubiquiti uses .lan as the default in its AmpliFi products. MikroTik documents it as part of its network-discovery mechanism.

[2] I'm thinking of Cloudflare, Quad9, and others.

	▲	denkmoon 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[delayed]
	▲	mzajc 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> ICANN isn't the DNS police ICANN and IANA very much are the DNS police. As a matter of fact, IANA maintains a list of special-use domains - though, despite its widespread use, .lan is not on the list - and these domains will get rejected from gTLD applications outright. The last thing I want is to require each recursive resolver to have their own idea of what should and shouldn't be resolved. On a related note, Google owns a registry (CRR) and a recursive resolver (8.8.8.8) that's commonly used by default or as fallback. Letting them ban entire TLDs would be a massive conflict of interest.